Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380
- 399)
380. Mr Elvin: It will be less of a satellite
once Crossrail is in because the connections into the City and
the West End will be very rapid.
(Mr Rees) That depends on where people are
coming from. You have to remember that a lot of people commuting
to Canary Wharf will not be coming via Crossrail because they
are not coming in on the westerly axis, but they are coming in
from the south-west via Waterloo, so it will not do anything for
their journey.
381. Mr Elvin: Well, at least we will
have the benefit of established West End and City facilities which
clearly Frankfurt has not been able to provide. We are simply
providing better accessibility to an established centre, a world
city.
(Mr Rees) Yes, it is the London offer that
is important.
382. Mr Elvin: Can I just go to some
questions of clarification relating to the proposed Crossrail
station, and you will forgive me if I do not enjoy the word "Livergate"
because it sounds a little bit too much like raw meat! Perhaps
Mr Bennett can put up a plan of the proposed location of the station
for me. Mr Rees, lest there be any doubt, Moorgate is the western
entrance to the Crossrail station and Liverpool Street is the
eastern entrance to the Crossrail station. The station in fact
runs between the two.
(Mr Rees) That is correct.
383. Mr Elvin: So someone getting off
a Crossrail train is faced with making the choice of whether to
go to Moorgate or Liverpool Street actually on the platform and
not in any other location?
(Mr Rees) That is correct.
384. Mr Elvin: What the plan shows is
that of course the route to Moorgate from the platform is a very
direct, linear one, does it not?
(Mr Rees) Well, both the exits are linear to
a large extent. You are flowing either west or east.
385. Mr Elvin: To get to Liverpool Street,
as Mr Binley noted earlier, there is then quite a long tunnel
which we can see coming up beyond the top end of the station which
equates to the lip of the tunnel which we can see on your figure
A.
(Mr Rees) Yes, but heading more or less in
the same direction, yes, that is true.
386. Mr Elvin: Ms Lieven will pick up
with your colleague, Mr Weiss, the comparative distance within
the details. I am only dealing with the general impressions that
you dealt with, but in fact the route from the platform up to
Liverpool Street is lengthier and more circuitous than the route
to Moorgate from the platform, is it not?
(Mr Rees) It is lengthier, but I do not think
it is necessarily more circuitous. It depends where you are going
when you get above ground.
387. Mr Elvin: We will leave that point
for the Committee to digest. Can I ask that your Figure A be put
up please because I just want to deal with one of Mr Binley's
questions about access for those who are less able to take the
tunnel. What you did not tell Mr Binley, Mr Rees, is that there
are separate accesses, MIP accesses, for those who are less able
to use the lengthier route. There are direct accesses for those
who are mobility impaired via lifts straight to the street, are
there not? If we look at the running tunnels for Crossrail where
the number `125' appears, there are lifts provided at platform
level straight up to Old Broad Street.
(Mr Rees) That is correct. We are simply seeking
equivalent facilities for the able bodied.
388. Mr Elvin: Sorry, I am dealing with
Mr Binley's question, you will forgive me, Mr Rees. When Mr Binley
asked the question, he might have obtained the impression that
there was no special access for the mobility impaired. There is
direct access because one needs simply to go from either platform
at grade, at level access, to those escalators and you get straight
up to street level and the journey, therefore, is very straightforward.
There is also a similar provision, though not shown on your plan,
at Moorgate for access for mobility-impaired passengers at platform
level straight up to street level.
(Mr Rees) Yes.
389. Mr Elvin: Mr Binley, I hope that
deals with that point.
390. Mr Binley: Yes, it does and it clarifies
a point that I was concerned about.
391. Mr Elvin: Could Mr Bennett please
zoom in on ticket hall B please, and this is still Figure A of
Mr Laurence's plans.[5]
In terms of what will happen for those who do not use the mobility
impaired exits, they will come up the tunnel and join the existing
concourse at point M. Now, it was suggested, I think, that there
was simply a breaking through of the wall at point M, which the
Committee will see on their site inspection tomorrow, but in fact
there are going to be greater improvements in the ticket hall,
are there not? There is an office just at the bottom of where
it says `point M' which are going to be removed, thus widening
the circulation space of the concourse. That is visible at least
on Figure A as a dotted line and I think it is visible on the
screen. There is currently an office there and that will be taken
out to widen the concourse. Were you aware of that?
(Mr Rees) I am not clear whether actually widening
it or creating a route around behind it, a relief route to get
to the Circle and Metropolitan Lines, but Mr Weiss will be able
to advise you better on that matter.
392. Mr Elvin: Firstly, it is to be removed
and, secondly, the Committee can see it tomorrow and they will
also see the point at which it is proposed to break through into
the existing ticket hall, so, if that is right, it is not just
a question of breaking through the wall and doing nothing else,
is it?
(Mr Rees) I am not in a position to be able
to answer your question.
393. Mr Elvin: Very well. Can I come
to the question of development locations and the like and can
I just pick up an answer you gave, I think it was, to Sir Peter
earlier or maybe to the Chairman about comparative locations of
stations and could we go please to your tab 1 and the map of existing
rail and Underground stations. You suggested that there might
be some take-up of Moorgate area passengers by Farringdon and
you pointed to the Underground symbol just above the word `market'.
(Mr Rees) No, the Underground symbol to the
left of the word `Smithfield'.
394. Mr Elvin: Well, I want that clarified
because it seemed to me that you might have been referring to
the other.
(Mr Rees) No, that is the Barbican.
395. Mr Elvin: That is the Barbican tube
which is not part of Crossrail?
(Mr Rees) That is correct.
396. Mr Elvin: In order for anyone in
the Moorfield area to access a Crossrail station to the west,
the Underground symbol which is diagonally above `Smithfield',
above the market, that is the easternmost ticket hall of Farringdon?
(Mr Rees) Yes, that is correct.
397. Mr Elvin: Can I ask for some clarification
about the opportunity areas unconstrained by the policies for
conservation reviews where you expect higher buildings to be permissible.
That was the plan at the end of your tab 15, the east cluster
versus the north-central area. Again it is a point of clarification
so that the Committee understands the context. So far as the constraints
on development are concerned, and this is part of the problem
of course caused by the division of local authority boundaries,
you have only shown the constraints in the eastern cluster which
lie within the City of London so far as the conservation areas
are concerned, have you not? You have not gone beyond the City
boundaries?
(Mr Rees) That is correct.
398. Mr Elvin: Sir, I will just have
this put on the scanner and it is from the Environmental Statement.
It is not in the non-technical summary, but volume 4A of the Environmental
Statement, map C7I. We will make sure that the Committee have
a copy. Mr Rees, just to give the Committee the context, we can
see Liverpool Street as the big, purple rectangle in almost the
centre and we can see the conservation areas in yellow in the
City just to the right, but there the City boundary ends, as we
can see on your other plan. If we go into Tower Hamlets, we can
see that a very large proportion indeed of the area immediately
across the City boundary in the same area as indicated by the
eastern cluster is a conservation area. There is a scheduled ancient
monument which we can see in dark brown, there is Spitalfields
Market which is Listed and various other Listed buildings in the
area of Spitalfields, so there are considerable constraints outside
the immediate boundaries of the City which do not appear because
you have just produced the City constraints.
(Mr Rees) But it also indicates the large opportunity
areas in the Bishopsgate goods yard at the top of the map and
Spitalfields Market area where you have that large, black development
shaded.
399. Mr Elvin: I do not want to spend
a lot of time on this particular point because clearly there are
a number of opportunities across the whole area. I just do not
want the Committee to be misled, and I do not mean that in any
pejorative sense, by a plan which only indicates the constraints
up to what might be regarded as an artificial administrative boundary.
(Mr Rees) I hope the Committee understand that
I can only represent the policies within the square mile of the
City of London as that is where I am the Planning Officer. Of
course there are various constraints over the boundary and indeed
it is for those authorities to decide whether they wish to have
development or not. That is not something which I can comment
upon.
5 Committee Ref: A2, Exhibit A-British Land plc Liverpool
Street Station Plans.. Back
|
